skypilot_pool_logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries meaningful extra burden and delivers: it discloses snapshot (non-streaming, non-following) semantics and the tail=0-means-all special case. It doesn't state permission requirements or size/cost limits, but the behavioral profile is solidly richer than the annotation alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then target, then worker_id, then tail behavior and the streaming caveat. No filler; every sentence adds information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers target, worker_id, tail, and streaming semantics well. It leaves open how worker_id interacts with target (e.g. whether a replica id is required for that target), which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the three valid target values (controller, load_balancer, replica), explains worker_id's optionality, and gives tail's default and the non-obvious 0=all convention. Only pool_name semantics go unexplained, which is self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a snapshot of logs from a worker pool') and enumerates the valid targets. It is clear on its own, but it never names the nearest sibling (skypilot_pool_download_logs) or otherwise explicitly separates itself from the other log tools, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or sibling routing. The closest thing is the implicit distinction created by 'snapshot' and 'Does not stream/follow', which signals this is the pull-once variant rather than a streaming/tail tool, but the agent must infer that against pool_download_logs, serve_logs, and the tail_* tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.